Compensation Films Patents: Top Companies & Filing Trends 2026
- Concentrated at the top. The five leading assignees together hold 45.4% of all 8,709 records in scope, with a leader at 1,407 records well ahead of fifth place at 295.
- Filing has cooled from its 2017 peak. Annual filings ran 390 in 2017 and fell to 137 by 2021, then declined a further 35% to 89 by 2024 — the last year the trend can be read as complete.
- Optical control classes dominate, but polymer classes trail closely. G02B and G02F each cover more than half of all records, while material and processing classes like C09K, C08J and C08F each sit near or above one in ten records.
Filing growth compares 2021 (137 records) with 2024 (89) — a three-year span. 2024 is the most recent year we treat as complete: publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so 2025 onwards are still filling in and any growth rate that ends there would understate the field. Top-5 share is the combined record count of the five largest assignees divided by all 8,709 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
Compensation films and retarders sit at the intersection of optics and polymer processing: patents in this set combine claims on retardation film, compensation film and quarter wave plate constructions with functional claims around birefringence control, viewing angle compensation, wavelength dispersion, stretching processes, liquid crystal coating and adhesion to polarizer layers. The scope spans 2015 through the 2026 data cut-off, capturing both the mature LCD-era film stack and the newer reverse-wavelength-dispersion designs aimed at OLED and foldable displays.
The dataset totals 8,709 published records, each classified across multiple IPC subclasses because a single film patent typically claims both an optical function and a material or process route. Reading the classes and the assignee concentration together shows where claim space is already dense and where a new filing would land on open ground rather than on top of an incumbent's stack.
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 8,709 records: how filing volume has moved year over year, and how the underlying technology splits across IPC subclasses.
Filing trend: a 2017 peak, then a multi-year pullback
Filings peaked at 390 in 2017 and had fallen to 137 by 2021. Over the following three complete years the total dropped a further 35%, to 89 in 2024 — the most recent year that can be read as finished, since publication lags filing by roughly 18 months and 2025-2026 figures will still fill in.
Technology composition: optics classes lead, polymer classes follow
G02B (optical elements & systems) and G02F (optical control & modulation) each appear in more than half of all 8,709 records, confirming that most filings claim the film's optical function directly. Materials and processing classes — C09K, B32B, C08J, C08F, C08L and B29C — each cover roughly one in ten to one in eight records, marking the polymer chemistry and lamination work that supports those optical claims.
Shares are the percentage of the 8,709 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Compensation Films and Retarders with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about compensation films and retarders and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaA representative filing and the most-cited prior art
Anti-reflection film structure and compensation film with reverse wavelength dispersion characteristics
The filing claims an anti-reflection structure combining a linear polarizer with a compensation film stretched from a single monolithic polymer substrate. The claimed film sets a thickness-direction retardation Rth(550) between 0 nm and 25 nm and an in-plane retardation ratio Re(450)/Re(550) between 0.7 and 0.95 — a reverse-wavelength-dispersion profile aimed at flatter viewing-angle performance than conventional stretched films.Filed by Sichuan Longhua Film Co., Ltd., published 2023 — illustrates the reverse-wavelength-dispersion design route that newer entrants are pursuing outside the legacy stretched-film patent stacks.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US6961116B2 | Lithographic apparatus, device manufacturing method, and device manufactured thereby | 1,092 |
| 2 | US20090096937A1 | Vehicle Rearview Assembly Including a Display for Displaying Video Captured by a Camera and User Instructions | 556 |
| 3 | US6724452B1 | Vertically aligned (VA) liquid crystal display device | 530 |
| 4 | US6661488B1 | Vertically-aligned (VA) liquid crystal display device | 491 |
| 5 | US5272518A | Colorimeter and calibration system | 434 |
| 6 | US20060172090A1 | Liquid crystal polyfunctional acrylate derivative and polymer thereof | 430 |
| 7 | JP2002267838A | Optical retardation film | 376 |
| 8 | US20080068520A1 | Vehicle Rearview Mirror Assembly Including a High Intensity Display | 310 |
| 9 | US5144498A | Variable wavelength light filter and sensor system | 285 |
| 10 | JP2005208414A | Reverse wavelength dispersion retardation film, and polarizing plate and display apparatus using the same | 283 |
Citation counts favour older filings that have had more time to accumulate references within the searched corpus — treat them as a signal of influence on the field, not of current commercial relevance.
Each row carries its publication number; clicking a row searches Eureka by that number.
Put your own technology through the same analysis
Eureka on the web
When you want the answer in the next five minutes.
The agent works the prompt against patents and technical literature, citing every source.
Run your analysis now →MCP server & REST API
When it has to run inside your own pipeline.
Patent search, landscape analysis and assignee resolution as MCP tools. Drop them into any agent framework, or call REST directly.
Browse MCP servers →What the numbers mean for a filing decision
Concentration, technology mix and citation patterns each point to a different practical conclusion for anyone deciding where to file next.
The top of the field is crowded, not the whole field
Five assignees hold 45.4% of all 8,709 records, with the leader alone at 1,407 — more than four times fifth place at 295. That leaves the majority of records spread across a long tail of single- or few-filing entrants, which is where a narrowly-scoped new claim is more likely to clear prior art.
Volume is down from its peak, not accelerating
Annual filings fell from 137 in 2021 to 89 in 2024, continuing a decline from the 2017 peak of 390. That does not mean the underlying technology is exhausted — it means the easy, broad claims were staked out early and later filings have had to narrow their scope to clear that art.
Optical function claims outnumber material claims
G02B and G02F between them touch a majority of records, while the polymer and processing classes (C09K, C08J, C08F, C08L, B29C) each sit in the 8-14% range. A film claimed purely as a material composition, without an optical-performance limitation, is competing in a comparatively less crowded slice of the same dataset.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to compensation films and retarders, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where the gaps sit
The ranked leaders show a familiar display-supply-chain lineup, but recent-year momentum diverges sharply between them, and several likely adjacent branches carry little current claim density.
One assignee holds a clear lead
The top-ranked assignee's 1,407 records put it well ahead of the field; second through fifth place combine with it for 45.4% of all 8,709 records. That scale typically means a dense internal patent family covering multiple film compositions and process variants, not just one core claim.
Momentum is uneven even among top filers
Recent-year filing counts vary widely across the leading assignees: one shows filings up 20% year over year at a modest volume, while others report a single filing or none in the latest year, and one shows a 95% year-over-year drop. A large historical portfolio does not guarantee continued active filing.
Co-filing is limited and concentrated in a few pairs
Only ten co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset, and the strongest pairing reaches 42 shared records. Most filing in this field happens under a single assignee name rather than through joint development claims, which makes the few recurring pairs worth watching for signs of supply agreements or licensing.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Fujifilm Corp | 6 | +20% |
| Sharp KK | 1 | — |
| Dongwoo Fine Chem Co Ltd | 1 | -95% |
| Nitto Denko Corp | 0 | — |
| LG Chem Ltd | 0 | — |
| Zeon Corp | 0 | — |
| Merck Patent GmbH | 0 | — |
| Samsung Electronics Co Ltd | 0 | -100% |
Where to take this analysis
The landscape points to specific next steps depending on whether the goal is freedom-to-operate, portfolio strategy, or identifying acquisition targets.
Map claims against the reverse-wavelength-dispersion route
The representative filing shows this design direction is already being claimed with specific retardation ranges. A freedom-to-operate check against that claim scope is worth running before committing to a similar film architecture.
Explore this in EurekaWatch momentum, not just portfolio size
Several top-ranked assignees show flat or declining recent-year filing, while at least one shows growth. Tracking momentum separately from historical volume gives an earlier read on where competitive activity is actually heading.
Track assignee momentum in EurekaScope claims into the under-claimed branches
Sub-areas like adhesion promoters and roll-to-roll stretching control show thinner claim density than the core optical-function classes. Narrow, process-specific claims here face less crowded prior art than broad film-composition claims.
Search white space in EurekaCommon questions about this landscape
The dataset ranks 100 assignees by patent family count, with the leading company holding 1,407 records and the top five together accounting for 45.4% of all 8,709 records in scope. This is a display-supply-chain-heavy field, dominated by companies that make polarizer, film and liquid-crystal materials rather than display-panel makers themselves. Beyond the top five, filing counts drop off quickly into a long tail of companies with far fewer records each, so the field is concentrated at the top but not closed to new entrants.
No — filings peaked at 390 in 2017 and have declined since, falling to 137 by 2021 and down a further 35% to 89 by 2024, the most recent year that can be treated as complete. Figures for 2025 and 2026 are still incomplete because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, so they should not be read as confirming a continued decline. The overall pattern is a mature field with reduced but still active filing rather than an emerging one.
Both terms appear in the search scope because they describe overlapping optical functions: a quarter wave plate is a specific retardation design (typically a quarter-wavelength phase shift) used for circular polarization control, while a compensation film is the broader category covering any film engineered to correct viewing-angle or color-shift issues in a display stack. Many patents in this dataset claim a film that performs both functions simultaneously, which is why the search string treats them as overlapping rather than separate categories. The IPC classification data shows most of these films are also tied to specific stretching or coating processes, so the functional claim and the manufacturing claim tend to travel together in the same filing.
Reverse-wavelength-dispersion designs built on monolithic polymer substrates, thin-film retarders suited to foldable OLED stacks, and process-level claims around liquid-crystal-coating adhesion or roll-to-roll stretching control all show comparatively thinner claim density than the core optical-function classes like G02B and G02F. These are process- and material-adjacent branches rather than entirely new functions, which is exactly why they carry less accumulated prior art. A narrowly scoped claim in one of these branches is more likely to clear examination than a broad film-composition claim filed against the dominant classes.
Not necessarily. The most-cited records in this dataset are older filings — some from outside the display-film field entirely, such as lithography and vehicle-display patents — that have simply had more years to accumulate citations within the searched corpus. Citation count is a better signal of a patent's historical influence on how the field's claims were written than of its current commercial relevance. For an assessment of what is commercially active now, recent-year filing momentum and current assignee portfolios are more reliable indicators than citation totals.
Research Compensation Films and Retarders in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole compensation films and retarders corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.
Disclaimer. This page is generated from Patsnap Eureka data drawn from a limited snapshot of global patent and scientific-literature records, and is provided for general information and reference only.
Patent data carries inherent limitations: recent filings (typically the most recent 18–24 months) are under-counted due to standard publication lag; counts may be reported at either a patent-family or a patent-record basis and are not always directly comparable; classification, applicant-name, and citation data may contain errors, duplicates, or omissions; and the underlying search query defines and constrains the scope shown. As a result, the analysis may be incomplete or inaccurate and may not reflect the full technology landscape.
Nothing on this page constitutes an exhaustive prior-art, novelty, freedom-to-operate, or validity search, nor does it constitute legal, financial, investment, or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon as such. Any patent, commercial, or strategic decision should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent, legal, and domain professionals. Patsnap makes no warranties, express or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness, or fitness for any particular purpose of the information presented.
Machine translation. Assignee and organisation names originally recorded in Chinese, Japanese or Korean have been rendered into English by an AI translation step so that the tables stay readable. These renderings are best-effort and may not match a company’s registered English name; the original name is what the underlying patent record carries, and it is what any Eureka query launched from this page uses.